Loot boxes that directly affect quality of play have been around for a while and have not usually caused this much of a ruckus. I don't think this would have been such a big deal if it weren't for news just beforehand of EA closing Visceral and thus the only other Star Wars game in development (Amy Hennig's project) being canceled. Despite the length stories detailing all of the different issues, a lot of people assume that EA put all their chips in on Battlefront 2 like "well, if you want to play Star Wars, you have to play Battlefront 2, and if you want to be good, you have to spend a lot more on top of the game". You didn't actually have to spend anything to get good stuff, but they are using a loot system similar to ME3/DA:I/ME:A where what you get is random, so some reviewers really hated seeing other reviewers already have legendary items before them while they got attachments to Heros they hadn't unlocked yet (guess they've never played any CCGs before).

I will probably buy the game once it goes on sale, because the thing I wanted the most (starfighter modes) has been added. I've watched some streamers playing it, and it seems fun, although it may get old fast as it's not very deep.

Ok, you raise a bunch of points I wasn't aware of. I just saw people saying "I pay full price for a game, and then you lock Vader and Luke. You want me to pay real money or invest 40 hours PER character to unlock. Whoever came up with that decision made a big error. I see people mention the most downvoted comment ever on reddit came from a post defending why they did this.

Can you explain to me why it's "totally" p2w? Knowing your history with PvP games, I'm assuming that you haven't actually played it, but I could be wrong.

The loot boxes are random in content, with star card content providing one of the main means for progression in the game.

So if you pay for loot boxes you will progress faster than a person who does not buy loot boxes. That's pay to win.The random nature of the loot boxes means that within a given amount of money, two people will get differing amounts of progression out of the boxes. Which is the gambling element.

Pay to win is where a person pays money to gain advantage over players who do not pay money.This doesn't actually translate into "winning" in PvP because, if you're a staggeringly incompetent player, no amount of loot boxes will help you BUT, you'd still be at an advantage over the other staggeringly incompetent players who do not buy loot boxes.

Right, but the rhetoric surrounding media coverage of the game makes it out to be a Chinese MMO.

My take on it is that:

1. Modern Warfare 1 came out in 2007, and unlocking stuff with leveling up and playtime has been a staple of multiplayer console shooters at least since then. Clearly, the mass audience has no problems with gameplay not being on a level playing field - if anything, the availability of tons of stuff to unlock is a selling point, not a disadvantage (see the market's rejection of Titanfall).

If Battlefront's progression system had the numbers tweaked so that higher quality star cards were less dramatic upgrades over common quality ones, things would be better. If crafting costs were cheaper (right now, crafting a common takes an hour and a half of play on average?), things would be better. If higher qualities of the same star card had smaller numerical advantages over lower ones, things would be better. I don't think the system's great, but I also don't think it's something that's fundamentally wrong that adjustment wouldn't be able to fix.

2. Battlefront is even more casual than its competitors. Odds are that losing an engagement because someone else had better numbers than you will have about zero impact on the progression of the match when the dominant game mode is 20v20 objective-based. Apparently when there was going to be an Overwatch-like hero competitive mode, box rewards were going to be cosmetic only, but Disney vetoed that, so we'll never know.

My take on Battlefront in general is that it's supposed to be more fun/arcade-y than the slew of gritty realistic FPS games out there, with fairly big teams as well, so the difference between one person having epic gear and another not having anything doesn't mean that much. Plus the whole point of Battlefront is to feel like "just another cog in the machine" of a giant intergalactic war, playing as mostly faceless Rebels/Imperials/Droids/etc., so there's context for dying frequently not being unexpected. There's also just as good a chance that the people with the great gear are on your team.

If this was just some game set in the SW Universe that might all be fine. The fact the most wanted characters are out of reach for a fun/arcadey game is the gripe.

If Vader/Luke weren't in the game the discussion would probably be quite different. It would be similar to Lemmings mention of just crates providing bonuses.

Imagine next month, we finally get to see Episode 8 in the theatre, we finally get to see Luke talk to Rey, then be told, you can hear him talk if you give us extra cash, or sit through a bunch of other content. They'd never do that (I hope). But a game is different to them.

It's nice to feel smug about it, but the other three games are also on sale for Black Friday while Battlefront isn't. There's a high chance that having to hold back stock in reserve for the weekend might have been involved.